- Thread starter
- #21
sportscardtheory
Active member
Don't. It's just a bunch of angry, raging children who troll each other in perpetuity.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
MLB HOT LIST - Opening Night to Monday, April 11th - WEEK 1
- Thread starter sportscardtheory
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Don't. It's just a bunch of angry, raging children who troll each other in perpetuity.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
So when a guy makes this list, you care about his best card from his rookie year. Topps Triple Threads is an odd take, since those cards aren't readily available. And why do they make your list? Because they sell for the most? If it's about the money, you should simply focus on the card that is selling the best.
Maybe we should just limit it to what series of commonly available Topps product there is out there. Topps 1, 2, or update; maybe Heritage. I don't know. You are sending mixed signals with the dual nature (cards and performance) of the list. I'm not saying you deserve people spazzing out on you, but it can be fixed. If you want.
Or, **** the haters. They can make their own damn list if they don't like it.
Maybe we should just limit it to what series of commonly available Topps product there is out there. Topps 1, 2, or update; maybe Heritage. I don't know. You are sending mixed signals with the dual nature (cards and performance) of the list. I'm not saying you deserve people spazzing out on you, but it can be fixed. If you want.
Or, **** the haters. They can make their own damn list if they don't like it.
AnthonyCorona
Well-known member
I can honestly say I've had only positive experiences on BO but I've only been there like two months. I don't really get involved deep into. Mostly stick to posting set needs and I've gotten quite a few freebies. I know there's aholes there, I've just been lucky enough to not encounter them
- Thread starter
- #24
sportscardtheory
Active member
They are those particular players' best true base RCs. If they are a part of a licensed base set, then they "can" be RCs, based on long-stood-by RC rules that the hobby created. Some people act like I'm making this stuff up, but it's been this way for 50+ years. lol Just because MLB ruined the clarity of the RC doesn't mean it's just anarchy now where anything goes. We can still follow basic guidelines, and that's all my intent is. PSA set registries are the same way, and they are one of the biggest staples of the hobby. They abide by only 'pack or set released base set cards' as RCs. Yes they have other non-RC guidelines, like no card serial-numbered to 999 or less and no autos, but that's just to keep the sets doable and has nothing to do with what they perceive as a RC.
Last edited:
bmp1971
Active member
Meanwhile, an Aaron Nola orange auto 2014 BDP sold for just $203.00 via PROBSTEIN on 4/12: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Bowman...796396?hash=item58d8b3fcec:g:e4wAAOSwfl9XBAr3
His stuff is still dirt cheap.
His stuff is still dirt cheap.
- Thread starter
- #26
sportscardtheory
Active member
Some people, in the very same breath, will say that these cards are not these player's "best" RCs, yet claim that it's the player's first Bowman/Bowman Chrome or whatever. But why are they right and I'm wrong when they use subjectivity as the basis for their opinion. It's hypocritical to say there are no rules, yet abide by your own set of rules. lol In essence, we are both right, therefore can neither be wrong.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #27
sportscardtheory
Active member
Another 2015 rookie that Topps greedily didn't create 2015 base cards of, to help sell 2016 product. Now we are stuck with 2016 second year Aaron Nola RC Logo cards to go along with Sano and Schwarber.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
I understand what you're talking about. I'm just curious as to your criteria for "Best" rookie card. Why Topps Triple Threads?
- Thread starter
- #29
sportscardtheory
Active member
It depends on the player. For say, Bryce Harper, it's his only base AU RC and it's limited to 99 and features player-worn. He only has two "rare" true RCs, the TTT AU/JSY/99 and the Topps Five Star base/80. The 2012 Heritage base/1000 is also a great seller because of the Heritage name, but it can't compete with an AU/JSY/99.
- Thread starter
- #30
sportscardtheory
Active member
There is a reason that a Stephen Curry 2009-10 National Treasures RC/AU/JSY/99 outsells every other RC ever made of him, and it's a base card, true RC. Same doesn't go for baseball, strangely, but it certainly shouldn't be any different. Why someone would choose "first" over rarity is beyond me. I'd take a 2012 TTT Harper over a 2011 BC AU any day of the week. There's literally only 99 of them. Come on.
Last edited:
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
I know it's kind of apples and oranges, but what do you consider a football card from a "draft" product of the same year, but technically came out before he played a game?
- Thread starter
- #32
sportscardtheory
Active member
If it's not licensed by the NFL, it's not a RC, IMO. If you mean NFL licensed without NFL jerseys, I guess it's still a RC because it will have the team's NFL logo and was released in his rookie season. It has nothing to do with the picture, IMO. It's all about licensing.
Of course, these are all just my opinions and everyone should feel free to disagree with me.
- Thread starter
- #33
sportscardtheory
Active member
IN MY OPINION, which is the long-standing hobby definition, this is what constitutes a TRUE RC in all four major sports
1. Officially licensed by the respective league, NOT just a players association.
2. Is a base card that can be found in packs, OR box sets which are a "continuation" of a previous base set that was released in pack form from the same year.
3. Is NOT an insert or parallel card.
That's pretty much it. I'll call a card that doesn't fit these requirements a rookie card all day long, but to me, there is a difference between a RC and a rookie card. RC is an official designation, whereas rookie card is a loose definition.
1. Officially licensed by the respective league, NOT just a players association.
2. Is a base card that can be found in packs, OR box sets which are a "continuation" of a previous base set that was released in pack form from the same year.
3. Is NOT an insert or parallel card.
That's pretty much it. I'll call a card that doesn't fit these requirements a rookie card all day long, but to me, there is a difference between a RC and a rookie card. RC is an official designation, whereas rookie card is a loose definition.
Last edited:
You don't happen to go by Judy Heeter, do you?
(The architect of the rookie rules ten years ago, who has since resigned from the MLBPA.)
- Thread starter
- #35
sportscardtheory
Active member
The requirements I posted have been going strong for almost 50 years. There was no change in 2006, MLB just told card manufacturers what they can and can't release to the public and how they can and can't do it. The true RC requirements never changed. Why do you think MLB told companies to stop making prospects part of base sets... because it's not a RC unless it's part of a base set. They were attempting to end the 'RC from 5 to 10 years before the player's debut' nonsense, but they failed by letting companies continue to release MLB licensed prospect cards as "insert" cards, thus the confusion.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #36
sportscardtheory
Active member
carlitoson
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 1,813
- 0
One of the points I was trying to make is that the pack-issued thing (rule # 2) needs to go away (in my opinion of course).
It's 2016; not 2006. Time changes things. There are now cards that you can only get on-line. The Tyler White is a good example of a new kind of RC. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we see more and more of this going forward.
- Thread starter
- #38
sportscardtheory
Active member
But then you leave yourself open to no rules at all. Who wants that. You need some requirements, otherwise it's all just chaos. Those aren't true RCs, IMO. Never will be. You can't just print RCs on demand and sell them on their own. lol That's just not how it works. I don't mean to be all "Get off my lawn", but some things should be left alone. RCs are the backbone of this hobby, so playing loose and free with the requirements is a slippery slope. It's all just opinion though, really, so if you need to think that print-on-demand cards sold on their own online are RCs, more power to you. But I don't think the majority of knowledgeable collectors will ever agree with you.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
I know this sounds glib, but where are these rules from 50 years ago? I honestly don't know. Card manufacturers have been making USA cards and Draft Pick cards since the 80s.
- Thread starter
- #40
sportscardtheory
Active member
They're unwritten. I'm talking hobby-accepted designations for cards. Every card has some kind of descriptive interpretation other than TRADING CARD. It's what separates the RC from a non-RC. It's why people have been paying premiums for RCs since cards became a thing. Topps put Draft Picks and USA cards in their base sets and they were considered RCs. It's mainly about what is in the base set. Base set=RC. Not in the base set, not a RC. That's how it's always been. People that don't believe that or disagree are not the majority in the hobby.
Last edited:
